alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEIEA~QD~EYGENEIZIL~~% 

ow TEXAS 
Mrs. Elowaen Merch, R.N., RF 2 

Om t&a otku band, wa flad Article 4J28, Revbod Civil 

Stututa8, wkiek racds 88 fmllowar 

-Tkdslaw8h8llnotbacaut?udtospplyto 

tha grrtnitous au8bq of tlr, rick by frbatla, no8 any 

param uusiq t&c 8ick for kire w& &ea rd k uf 

wa7 u8ume or profasr to prscttcs u a griauk e*itwod ngistara4 urao.‘! 

Co turn -p.utical nusa- duotos to us Unt tk por8on pr*cticlq l uch l p ?ds88ia n d.mB ,?u*e ie? biTa er colnpal tlan ui eqresal7 ladleda that tbst purr is ut a graduk 

ralfrtprad marso. Onloss PI bch00l fn quc8tion repnbontb itbaLi, 

u truhisq persea for gra.&sata codified tqbkred aarshg, tka 

stdutas, AHi&8 4513 and 4322 are not spplicsbl*. ‘We fiw3 uothbg 

tkat lndlcCtr8 t&t tin &g58lhzo intan& tht 7,arT board 8hodd 

uucfsa y cmatrol war 8ucb 8ebaaL 

It k our mplatem tbt tbqk 7a raquaat tba diatrtct 

orc~stbry*IIEkrL~8~~rc~totJ*uticra 

ta prww%t tba wmhtuuca aa opu4tioa of such rcwol u t&a Petl r su Tr dsing c o usa fa t P u c tic sl NUIU, aa Distr ic t Atto r na y, 

County iUtom7 or tha Attony Cknor8l has no authority to t&o 

say action to r a str dn tbs aptdon of this 8c h r d. 

ATTORNEYGENERALOF7EXzS 

Mm AW *al 

APPROVriD JVL 17.1939 

(Zl&aodj w. Ft. Moon 

FlMT ASSUITANT 

ATTORNEY OENSRAL 

M o ?r t8 Hodges 

Aa*istut 

APPROVED 

OPWt$?l’ZCObt3.4lTTr;e; 

By w.LlL,c-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000032621
<NAME> EMERSON RADIO CORP. 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,001
<INVENTORY>                                     13,329
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,918
<PP&E>                                           5,651
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,521
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,660
<BONDS>                                         20,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,000
<COMMON>                                           403
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,768
<SALES>                                        173,668
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               178,708
<CGS>                                          174,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  174,184
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,275
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,558
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,738)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,968)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-6175.

#### Kim Marie LaBranche, Petitioner v. Argent Mortgage Company.

562 U.S. 1011, 131 S. Ct. 522,

178 L. Ed. 2d 385,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8497.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-11279.

#### Mars L. Gore, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

565 U.S. 806, 132 S. Ct. 379,

181 L. Ed. 2d 6,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6326.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
#### Com. v. Adams

11/16/2015

361 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 454
#### *Krawiec, Petitioner, v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. et al., Respondents,*

No. 92218-7.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45776-8-II, May 12, 2015, 189 Wn. App. 234. *Denied*February 10, 2016.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of R.H. Donnelley
Inc. for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer's knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of R.H. Donnelley Inc. as of the dates and for the periods expressed
            in the Report.


/s/ Steven M. Blondy

Steven M. Blondy
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       54
LOCAL AGREEMENT – Article S21 

OVERTIME

BETWEEN

DLA Philadelphia (includes all bargaining unit employees for DLA Components co-located 

at the Naval Support Activity – Philadelphia Installation)

AND

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), Local 62 

Section 1 – General

A. Article 21 – Overtime Assignments, Section 3.I. and Section 4.B., of the Master Labor 

Agreement (MLA) between DLA and AFGE Council 169, dated September 2022, allow 

for overtime procedures and rostering procedures not specifically negotiated in Article 21 

to be negotiated locally at each site. Article 21, Section 7 of the MLA allows for parties to 

negotiate the timeframes for temporarily removing employees from an overtime roster 

due to absenteeism. Accordingly, the parties agree to the overtime, rostering and 

absenteeism procedures set forth below. 

Section 2 – Overtime and Rostering Procedures

A. The Employer and the Union recognize a mutual responsibility for expeditious and 

efficient service to the public, including the need for a willingness on the part of 

employees to be available when workloads require overtime. 

B. Overtime assignments will be distributed and rotated among available qualified 

employees, in seniority order, within an organizational branch and the parties agree this 

to be the preferred method of assigning overtime. 

C. Use of scheduled leave during an employee’s normal hours of duty does not normally 

preclude the employee from working overtime the same day. 

Section 3 – Overtime Absenteeism

A. The Employer and the Union agree that overtime hours are necessary for the efficient 

function of the Agency in service to the Warfighter and its Whole of Government 

Partners. 

B. When an employee is scheduled to work overtime, whether overtime was requested, 

based on a volunteer solicitation/assignment or directed by management, they are 

expected to report for duty in accordance with their overtime schedule. An employee who 
fails to report for their scheduled overtime without utilizing the established overtime calloff procedures in accordance with Section 7 of Article 21 will not be eligible for any 

additional overtime assignments for 28 calendar days. 

For DLA:

_________________________ 

David Johns, Deputy Director, Medical 

DLA Troop Support/Philadelphia

__________________________ 

For the Union: 

__________________________

Digmarie Aponte, President 

AFGE Local 62 

___________________________ 

Date Date
Circle ‘Round Your Benefits
 

How to Get the Most Value from the Programs 


The intent of this diagram is to provide 

you with a general understanding of 

how the Federal Employees Health 

Benefits (FEHB) Program, the Federal 

Employees Dental and Vision Insurance 

Program (FEDVIP) and the Federal 

Flexible Spending Account Program 

(FSAFEDS) work together. For specific 

information on each Program, visit 

www.opm.gov/insure. FEHB 

Comprehensive medical insurance 

Dental benefits may be included 

Vision benefits may be included 

FSAFEDS 

Save money using tax-free 

dollars. You can put aside pretax dollars eachyear to pay for 

eligible health care services 

and items for you and your 

family that are not paid by your 

health, dental, or vision 

insurance. 

*Information on a

Dependent Care FSA is at 

www.FSAFEDS.com 

FEDVIP

 Dental - comprehensive 

dental insurance (such as free 

 semi-annual cleanings),

 and/or 

Vision - comprehensive vision 

insurance (such as yearly 

eye exam) 

FEHB and FSA 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket 

expenses. When you have FEHB and an 

FSA, you can use money in your FSA 

to pay for your eligible FEHB 

out-of-pocket expenses (such as 

copayments and coinsurance) 

and qualified medical costs 

and health care expenses 

that your FEHB may 

not cover (such as 

chiropractic or 

hearing 

aids). 

FEHB and FEDVIP 

 Lower your out-of-pocket costs on 

dental and vision expenses with FEDVIP 

 coverage in addition to FEHB 

coverage. Your FEHB plan will be 

 the first payer for any 

dental and/or vision benefit 

payments they may 

also cover. 

FSA and FEDVIP 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket dental and vision

 expenses after FEDVIP payments. When you have an 

FSA and FEDVIP, you can use money in your FSA 

to pay for your eligible FEDVIP out-of-pocket 

expenses (such as copayments and 

coinsurance) and eligible expenses 

that your FEDVIP plan 

may not cover. 

FEHB, FEDVIP, and FSA 

Save money on eligible out-of-pocket dental and vision 

expenses. When you have FEHB, FEDVIP, and an FSA, your 

FEHB plan will be the first payer of any benefit payments. 

You can use your FSA to pay for any eligible out-of-pocket 

expenses not covered by your FEHB or FEDVIP plan.
No. 10-76.

#### Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A., et al., Petitioners v. Edgar D. Brown, et ux., Co-Administrators of the Estate of Julian David Brown, et al.

562 U.S. 1127, 131 S. Ct. 858,

178 L. Ed. 2d 621,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7.

January 7, 2011.

Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
No. 10-6695.

#### Maria Maricela Martinez-Mendoza, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1202, 131 S. Ct. 1043,

178 L. Ed. 2d 867,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1009.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 384 Fed. Appx. 338.
No. 10-6763.

#### Marlin E. Jones, Petitioner v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, et al.

562 U.S. 1050, 131 S. Ct. 626,

178 L. Ed. 2d 445,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8902.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-7760.

#### Richard Potts, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 966,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 445.

178 L. Ed. 2d 795,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
How to be a Mental Health Ally in 

Your Personal and Work Life

Allies create safe spaces for others to discuss 

their mental health challenges.

Register for this live webinar on Wednesday, September 13 at 1:00 pm CT to:

• Discuss what it means to be a mental health ally.

• Learn how to show understanding and compassion to those who may be 

struggling.

• Foster a positive environment that supports those needing help.

*All live webinars are recorded and posted on your member website.

B-MP0923E (6/23) ©2023 Magellan Health, Inc.

Visit MagellanAscend.com or call your Employee

Assistance Program at 1-866-580-9046 (TTY 711)

for helpful resources.
Richmond, Virginia

Email this event to me @

Invalid Email Address!Invalid Email Address!

**Start Date/Time:**

Friday, August 1, 2025 12:30 PM

**Description:**

During the month of August, Defense Logistics Agency Richmond, Virginia, will transition to the Warehouse Management System. Customers with questions or concerns about their material are encouraged to reach out via the contact information foundon the Richmond, Virginia, location page.

Enrolled Users:

                - Return
                - 
                - Export
No. 10-5304.

#### Edd Cox, Jr., Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 983,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 527.

178 L. Ed. 2d 812,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 273, 178 L. Ed. 2d 180, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 7262.
Exhibit 99.1



Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002)



I, John R. Peeler, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Acterna
Corporation (the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



|(1) |  | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 (the Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 30, 2003



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    John R.
Peeler                
|John R. Peeler                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 10-6799.

#### Roy C. Hammond, Petitioner v. Tufamerica, Inc.

562 U.S. 1195, 131 S. Ct. 1000,

178 L. Ed. 2d 856,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 652.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15535]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-241-000]


Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

June 5, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 2, 1998, Tuscarora Gas Transmission 
Company (Tuscarora) submitted a filing justifying its existing rates.
    Tuscarora states that this filing is in satisfaction of a condition 
imposed on Tuscarora in the original certificate order issued on May 
31, 1995, in Docket No. CP93-685-000. The certificate order required 
that Tuscarora submit a filing either justifying its existing rates or 
proposing alternative rates to take effect no later than the third 
anniversary of the in-service date. The third anniversary of 
Tuscarora's in-service date will be December 1, 1998.
    Although Tuscarora's revenue requirement supports a firm 
transportation rate that is higher than Tuscarora's current rate, the 
company proposes to retain its existing rates for firm and 
interruptible transportation service. Tuscarora states that its filing 
will not result in a change in rates for any class of service or 
customer.
    Tuscarora states that copies of its letter of transmittal, 
including the statement of nature, reasons and basis, and a summary of 
the cost of service and rate base filing were mailed to all customers 
and the state commissions of California, Oregon and Nevada.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 12, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15535 Filed 6-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Si el cigarrillo 

es su amigo, 

necesita uno mejor.

Sharon, 58 años

Illinois

Christine, 55 años

Pensilvania

Sharon y Christine creían que los cigarrillos siempre estarían de 

su lado. Las dos fumaban y las dos se enfermaron de cáncer. 

Los cigarrillos les hicieron daño. ¿Qué tipo de amigo haría eso?

Usted puede dejar de fumar. 

Para recibir ayuda gratuita, llame al

1-855-DÉJELO-YA.

#CDCConsejos

Solamente impreso
United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 30, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20015

Summary Calendar

GARY CLYDE DANIELS

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MRS JO BEASLEY, PCA Nurse; MRS BARBARA HOLLNAGEL; MRS

THERESA PLACE; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; MR

ROBERTS, Physician Assistant Nurse; RANDALL HEALY

Defendants-Appellees

---------------------------------------------------------

GARY CLYDE DANIELS

Plaineiff-Appellant

v.

JO BEASLEY; BARBARA HOLLNAGEL; THERESA PLACE; UNIVERSITY

OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; MR ROBERTS

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CV-3246

USDC No. 4:06-CV-3284
No. 07-20015

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Clyde Daniels, Texas prisoner # 579867, appeals from the dismissal

of his civil rights suit in which he alleged that the defendants were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court concluded that the

suit was frivolous.

Daniels argues that defendant Beasley gave him the wrong medication,

which resulted in excessive sleep, a loss of appetite, and a temporary loss of

vision. Daniels has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that the other

named defendants were not personally involved in the submission of the wrong

medication, and any such claim is abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). With respect to

Beasley, Daniels has not established that her actions involved more than

negligence. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

Additionally, Daniels has not shown that his injuries were more than de

minimis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th

Cir. 1997).

Daniels’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous,

it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Daniels is cautioned that the dismissal of

this appeal as frivolous, and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as

frivolous, count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). He is cautioned that if he accumulates

three strikes under § 1915(g), he will be unable to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in
No. 07-20015

3

any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.3

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-117519) relating to the registration of
shares to be used under Elscint Ltd. 2001 Incentive Plan to Employees and
Officers and the Elscint Ltd. 2003 Incentive Plan to Employees and Officers, of
our report dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Gamida cell Ltd. included in the Amendment to Annual Report of
Elscint Ltd. (Form 20-F/A) for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Tel Aviv Israel                               /s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
July 14, 2005                                 A Member of Ernst & Young Global
<PAGE>

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                       

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses 
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 2-91309, 
33-47832, 33-59562, 333-01871 and 333-01303) and the Registration Statements 
on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-76847, 2-81536, 33-26099, 33-30821, 33-48165, 33-52067, 
33-52989, 33-50563, 33-54099, 333-39945, 333-39931 and 333-40829) of Dresser 
Industries, Inc. of our report dated November 26, 1997 appearing on page 27 
of this Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP

Price Waterhouse LLP
Dallas, Texas
January 27, 1998
#### Schlecht, Petitioner, v. Clark County, Respondent,

No. 92198-9.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 47359-3-II, August 18, 2015. *Denied*February 10, 2016.